Author 




Title 



Jiii 

Vx 



Imprint 



16—47372-3 OFO 



University of Pennsylvania 



THE WITMER FORMBOARD 



By 

Herman H. Young 



An Abstract of a Thesis 

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School in 

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the 

degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



PmLADBLPHlA, Pa. 

1916 



l"B\^^^ 



\ 



1 

Reprinted from 

The Psychological Clinic, 

Vol. X. No. 4, June 15, 1916. 



THE WITMER FORMBOARD. 



In its various modifications the formboard is in general use 
among clinical psychologists, and appears to have won a permanent 
place among the tests to be regularly employed in clinical labora- 
tories. It is a developmental outgrowth of the simpler contrivances 
first used by Itard and Seguin for training purposes. 

The formboard used in this investigation differs in size, number, 
and arrangement of blocks from any heretofore described. It is 
Dr. Lightner Witmer's final modification of the formboard described 
and standardized by Dr. R. H. Sylvester [6]. The Witmer form- 
board was adopted to replace the older types, only after careful 
and extended experimentation in which many other variations in 
size, number, and arrangement of blocks were applied to children 
in the Psychological CUnic and to students in psychology at the 
University of Pennsylvania. It was the opinion of those concerned 
that this smaller board has all the advantages of the older and larger 
boards, and in addition has quaUties which make it more desirable 
as a test. It is more attractive, looking Uke a toy or puzzle. Both 
boards were given to a number of children, alternating them on 
successive trials. When the children were asked which board they 
preferred, the answers were predominately in favor of the smaller 
board. This smaller board also makes a much more convenient 
piece of apparatus, as it does not take up so much store room and 
is very easily carried about. Moreover the addition of an extra 
block makes it a slightly more comphcated test. 

The Witmer formboard contains eleven geometrical figures as 
nearly uniform in size as their variety of form will allow. The 
square block in the upper left hand corner of the board is one and 
a half inches on a side by half an inch in thickness. All the blocks 
are the same thickness. The recess on the board corresponding to 
each block is just enough larger than the block to permit it to be 
fitted in loosely, i. e. easily without becoming wedged in place, yet 

(93) 



94 



THE psyrfioLoaicAL cusic. 



with but little play. The depth of each recess is one-half that of 
the blocks, so that the blocks when in place extend one-fourth of 
an inch alx)ve the surface of the board. The blocks and their 
recesses are of such size and shajx* that no block can l)e fitted into 
any recess other than its own; in other words, the board is self- 
correcting. 



3 




THE WITNfER KORMHOARD. 



The entire board, includinp; the raised edge on each side three- 
eighths of an inch wide, is one foot square. The surrounding edge 
fits flush with the back of the board, but extends one-fourth of an 
inch above the face of the Iward or even with the blocks when in 
place. At the top a tray extends across the entire board, three 
and one-fourth inches wide and one-half inch deep, or as deep as 
the blocks are thick. Both board and blocks are neatly stained, 
the board being light oak and the blocks walnut, while the recesses 
are painted black. This produces an effective contrast between 
board, blocks, and recesses. 

i4r 



n IM 



THE WITMER FORMBOARD. 95 

The tray at the top of the board is a receptacle for the blocks 
when removed from their recesses. It determines definitely where 
the blocks are to be placed and insures that they shall be within 
reach of the subject throughout the test. When the examiner 
wishes to carry the board with him from school to school, the entire 
face of the board may be covered by a lid made for the purpose. 
In this case the record blanks are carried in the tray. 

It is only within the last few years that the formboard lias 
been extensively used as a testing device. During its short history 
it has undergone manj^ alterations and modifications, so that in its 
present form and appearance it is as remote from the original as 
the purpose it subserves, having been first used in training sub- 
normal children. In none of its developmental or final forms has 
a reliable and comprehensive standardization ever been carried 
to completion. A number have been attempted, several hundred 
children tested, and the results labeled "Standardization;" but 
without exception the range of variations has been entirely too 
large for the number of cases tested. The investigations thus con- 
ducted are, however, not to be discredited and pronounced valueless 
on this account. Their defect is one of omission rather than of 
commission. A complete and reliable standardization will require 
the testing of many thousand normal children and adults. 

Perhaps the most constructive piece of work done with the 
formboard is that by Dr. Sylvester [6]. His standardization is 
subject to the criticisms made above, but certain features of his 
work have served as the basis for more recent investigations. In 
the first place he demonstrated the necessity of giving at least three 
trials. He showed that three trials were sufficient reliably to deter- 
mine the subject's formboard ability and that more trials would 
be of little value, i. e. the time spent would be out of proportion to 
the accuracy gained [7]. In the second place he showed that of 
these three trials the shortest constitutes the most reliable single 
index of the subject's formboard ability. This does not mean that 
it is an infallible guide, but that on the whole it is more accurate 
than any other single feature, even than the average of three trials [8]. 
In the third place, he demonstrated that the number of errors made 
by normal children is too few to have value in the establishment 
of standards, and that their average shows no consistent correla- 
tion with age [9]. Another significant fact revealed by this same 
investigation is the negative correlation between age and the time 
required for replacing the blocks [10]. This clearly demonstrates 
the fundamental basis upon which a satisfactory standardization 
can be made. Other considerations discussed indicate that the 



96 THE PSYCIIOLOaiCAL (LIMC 

time fcnturo of tlu' test c«)nKtituti\s the only definite l»;i>i- for t}i<' 
esUihlishinont of norms. 

It is around this latter feature of the test that most of the 
experiment's and diseuasions eoneerning the formlward center. 
It would take us too far afield to attempt a review of the literature 
now available on this topic. Aside from the .standardizations, as 
they have been carried out so far, the above summary of Sylvester's 
work includes the imixirtant features now generally recognized. 
There are .several minor investigations, but they do not advance 
beyond what Sylvester lias done. As they merely serve to establish 
more fully the importance of the test, they will be referretl to in the 
bibliography or in the text as occasion may require. 

If now we turn from the past to the present and look to the 
future development of the formboard test, we see at once that most 
of the i-eal work is yet to Ik? done. We have not even a reliable 
age standartlization at our command. It ajjpears evident, as stated 
above, that an age standard is the easiest to establish, and so far 
as discovered is the only one pos.sil)le at present. Attempts have 
been made and are being made to correlate formboard ability with 
other mental traits and capacities, but no conclusive results have 
yet been produced. This failure is, perhaps, due as much to the 
inadequacy of the method and the indehniteness of the various 
mental traits and acquisitions with which correlation is attempted, 
as to any defect in the formboard test. We cannot hojx? to get 
significantly conclusive result,s from comi)arisojis until the mental 
processes and traits compared are more precisely defined and proved 
to be simple and eU'mentar>', in.stead of comj>lexes. Too often 
attempts are made to compare incommensurate qualities. 

The considerations just siunmarized have i)rompted the present 
investigation and determined in general the scope of the work 
attempted. It wjis undertaken and completed as a preliminary 
and basic outline of a series of comjirehensive investigations and 
rep(irts to be made on this one test. The reiisons for calling this a 
preliminary study and avoiding dogmatic conclusions and inter- 
pretations have steadily gainetl weight as work has progressed. 
Problems and i)(».s.sil)ilities were o|)ened which indicate roughly 
the extent and character of the necessary future investigations for 
the establishment of reliable norms of even the simplest sort and 
for finality in any .sen.se. 

A glance at the distributions of the time records shows that 
the norms here established ai-e only approximately correct, and 
that with two or three times as many records they might be con- 
.siderably shifted. .\s in all preceding investigations, we shall also 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 97 

see that there is a consistent negative correlation between time 
and age up to the ages of fifteen or sixteen at least. Up to the age 
of thirteen, half-year groupings are necessary. It is possible that 
further investigations will show these groups to be too large. A 
second conclusion for which we have considerable evidence, is that 
in general there, is a sex difference in formboard abihty in favor 
of the boys. At present we must be content with these generaliza- 
tions. Just what the differences are from one age to the next and 
just how great the sex differences are, must be left for future 
investigators to determine experimentally. 

Until age norms for the two sexes, separately, are niore reliably 
determined, i. e. until these simplest of correlations have been made, 
other possible and attempted correlations must necessarily suffer 
a severe handicap. With age norms and sex differences established, 
we would have the essential material at our command to attempt 
other comparisons, such as formboard ability with class standing, 
with manual training, a mechanical turn of mind, or with vocational 
adaptation. 

Method. 

The test is presented by exactly the same method to all sub- 
jects, whether they be normal or defective, children or adults. 
Even though the conditions here outlined may appear trivial, they 
are in cert;iin cases of great importance. If they are not carefully 
observed and standard conditions maintained throughout, a failure 
or poor record on the part of the subject may indicate the examiner's 
incompetency rather than the subject's inability. The sad thing 
about it is that in the permanent records, it is marked against the 
subject. 

Height of the table. The height of the table upon which the 
board is placed is the only variable. This is to be suited to the 
convenience of the individual tested, the aim being to have the 
board at such a height that the subject can perform the test to 
the best advantage. It is necessary that he be able to look down 
upon the board. If he can barely see across the top, he is compelled 
to work at a disadvantage, as he cannot see the recesses properly 
and cannot use his arms and hands freely. 

Position of board on table. The board is placed horizontally 
on the table with its lower edge (edge opposite tray) even mth the 
edge of the table nearest the subject. It is very important that 
the board be kept in this position and be constantly watched. In 
his attempts to huriy, a subject will often move the board about 
considerably, sometimes getting it out over the edge of the table 



98 THE PSYCJIOLCKJICAL CUMC. 

where it may tij) and f:ill to the fl(X)r, and somctinics jMisliinR it 
back from the edge until only with difficulty can he reach the blocks 
in the tray. 

Position of s^ibji'd. The subject is always required to stand 
directly in front of the board thr(Might)ut the test. In fact he is 
required to take a correct position with respect to the board Ixifore 
the directions for the first trial are given. Tliis position is insi.sted 
upon, because it gives the subject more freedom than any other in 
moving alx)ut during the performance of the test. He can readily 
adapt his position to see to the best advantage l)oth blocks and 
recesses, and has unlimited freedom in making the movements 
necessary to place the blocks quickly in their proper recesses by 
the use of either one or i)otli hands. It also gives the experimenter 
opportunity to set the table and board in the best light and l)e sure 
the subject will not have to work in his own shadow. The subject 
.'^hould always have the atlvantage of the best light available. 

The standard method. The subject is introduced to the test 
with as few directions as possible. The standard method gives 
all tliat it is necessar>' for him to know. It is pur])osely intended 
to throw the subject upon his <jwn resources and allow him the 
greatest opportunity of showing what he is really able to do. He 
is given no negative or "Thou shalt not" directions. The directions 
are all positive and active. In no case is he given any hel}) or sug- 
gestions other than those included in the standard directions. 
Inability to follow the standard directions or comjilete the test 
correctly without additional instruction constitutes a failure. These 
failures will be treated elsewhere as a separate investigation. The 
entire test consists of three trials given in as ra]Md succession as 
possible. 

First trial. As soon as the experimenter knows who the subject 
is and the ])osition has been taken before the board, he says to the 
subject, "I am going to take thesr blocks out and put them up here. 
I want to see how quickly you can put them back where they belong." 
While giving these directions the experimenter removes the blocks 
from their recesses and distrii)utes them in a hai)hazard arrange- 
ment in the tray at the top of the board, i. e. he begins to remove 
the blocks at the same time he begins to speak, but usually finishes 
speaking before the blocks are all removed. Then after the blocks 
are all removed the experimenter continues the directions thus, 
"You may use lx)th hands, and work just as fast as you can." This 
is generally sufficient to induce the subject to l)egin replacing the 
blocks at once. If he hesitates with an air of imcertainty, as if 
waiting for the "ready" signal, the experimenter may add, "You 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 99 

may begin as soon as you are ready," or "Go ahead,' or "All 
right," or "See how quickly you can put them in." If, however, 
these additional directions fail to bring an appropriate response, 
the test is considered a failure. If the subject goes to work at once, 
the time is recorded by means of a stop watch from the moment 
he touches the first block until the last block is set securely into 
its proper recess. For the test to be completed correctly all the 
blocks must be set down firmly in their respective recesses; but 
a trial may be accepted as correct if only one block is left lying loosely, 
but turned correctly upon its recess, providing the other ten are 
set in properly. It is advisable to encourage and assure the sub- 
ject of his success by saying, "That's right," as soon as he has all 
the blocks correctly replaced. 

Second trial. This follows the completion of the first trial 
immediately without comment of any kind whatever. On this 
trial the test is presented to every subject not only with the same 
directions, but with the blocks in a set arrangement. The general 
principle of this arrangement is that the blocks shall not come in 
regular order, and shall not when removed be in the tray directly 
above their respective recesses. Since the experimenter, in repeat- 
ing the test, tends unconsciously to fall into the habit of removing 
the blocks always in a certain manner, it seemed advisable to deter- 
mine the proper course of this habit before it was formed and 
thereby be assured that it will not defeat its purpose. The following 
arrangement was therefore decided upon and rigidly followed: 

The blocks are placed in the tray, arranged in three piles. One 
pile, set in the tray directly above recess number 1, contains blocks 
5, 10, 7, and 8, numbering from the top of the pile downward. 
The second pile, placed in the middle of the tray, contains blocks 
11, 2, and 9, numbering from the top downward. The third pile, 
placed in the tray directly above recess 9, contains blocks 1, 6, 4, 
and 3, numbering from the top downward. The blocks of each 
pile are picked up or removed from the recesses with one hand by 
taking them in the order of their numbers, as indicated above. 
Thus the first pile is formed by picking out block 5 and placing it 
on block 10, then picking up these two and placing them on block 
7, then these three and placing them on block 8, and last of all 
picking up all four and placing them in the tray directly above 
recess number 1. 

While the blocks are being removed in the manner described 
above, the experimenter says, "Now I am going to take the blocks 
out in this order (or a definite order) and I want to see if you' ciin't 
put them in quicker. ' Then when the blocks are all removed, 



ICK) THE FSYClJOLOdJCAL CLIMC. 

he s])urs tlie Kubject on thus, "Now w.'c how quickly you can put 
tliein in." The time is recorded in exactly the same manner a« 
on the (irst trial. Unless all the blocks are correctly replaced with- 
out further suj5i;estion the test is recorded as a failure. 

Third trial. As soon as all the blocks are correctly replaced 
on the second trial, the following directions are given, "Now (or 
this time) you may take the blocks out to suit yourself, and see 
if you can't put them in still quicker." The subject is given 
unlimitetl freedom in the removal of the blocks and their arrange- 
ment, with the single exception that he is required to phu'c them in 
the tray. As soon us he has removed all the blocks, he is urged to 
do his l>est by saying, " Now see how quickly you can replace them 
(or put them in)." The time is again taken as on the first trial, 
and the test is complete. 

QlANTITATIVE TrE.\TMK.\T. 

Blxactly the same method was employed in securing all the 
records treated in this monograjjh, and as far as uniformity can 
be obtained, the records of all the children tested are comparable. 
For various reasons beyond the control of the author, he cannot 
be personally responsible for the reliability of all the adult records, 
although he believes the errors are small, perhaps negligible. 

The distinction between children and adulti> in this treatment 
is arbitrary', but justifiable. All college students and public school 
teachers are considered adults regardless of age. They make up 
nearly the entire adult grouj;. Its age limits are very wide — from 
sixteen to sixty years. 

All j)uj)ils of the public schools an* considered as children, and 
are grouped according to sex and age. The children of this investi- 
gation constitute an unselectcd group of pupils from the regular 
classes of the I^hihwlelphia public elementary' schools. Inseleded 
means that there was no selection on the part of the examiner, and 
that he tested all the children from the regular classes in those 
schools in which he did his testing. The schools in which the t<^sting 
was done lie in two very ditYerent sections of the city. Of the first 
sixteen hundred children tested, about 75 or 80 per cent are of 
foreign parentage and live in the pcK)rer se('tions of the city. The 
last twelve hundred children tested, with the exception of about 
3 or 4 per cent, are of American parentage of the professional classes 
and live in one of the Ix^st sections of the city. The.<e different 
sections were chosen in an effort to nuike the (luantihed results 
more typic^il and reliable. 

Records eliminaled. Although there was no selection of the 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 101 

children to be tested, it was found necessary to make certain elimi- 
nations after the data had been collected. Eliminations were not 
made without abundant evidence of justification. In no case was 
a record excluded merely because the time record did not prove to 
be what the examiner expected. 

The eliminations can roughly be divided into two general classes. 
The first contains those cases who failed to complete the test 
correctly without instructions other than the standard directions. 
These are eliminated because they failed to perform the test 
properly, and because the method of treating failures, that of 
giving the subjects help and then estimating the amount of help 
given, is unsatisfactory and does not lend itself to standardization. 
These cases are not comparable with those who did the test suc- 
cessfully, or even with one another. The only respect in which 
they are comparable is, that with a standard method and under 
standard conditions they failed to complete the test. Failure in 
this sense does not mean feeblemindedness. Just what it indicates 
cannot be determined without more extensive investigation and 
study. The number of failures for each age is given at the top of 
the table of distributions. Of these failures, 72 per cent occurred 
on the first trial only, 12 per cent occurred on the second trial only, 
while 11 per cent occurred on both the first and second trials, the 
third trial being a success. Failure occurred for the first time on 
the third trial in about 3 per cent of the cases. Two children failed 
on all three trials. 

The second group of eliminations contains the records thrown 
out entirely from the above group and from the group who completed 
the test correctly. It includes the records of four children whose 
ages could not be verified, of one boy whose vision was so defective 
that it interfered seriously with his performance, of two children 
diagnosed as not higher than borderline cases, and four children 
diagnosed as feebleminded at the Psychological Clinic of the 
University of Pennsylvania. 

As the result of questionable formboard performances, about 
twelve children have been examined at the Psychological Clinic. 
Of these, six, as indicated above, have been diagnosed as below 
normal, while the others have been pronounced normal. Of the 
six diagnosed as borderline cases and feebleminded, three failed 
and required help on at least one trial of the formboard test. None 
of the other three failed on any trial, but completed it successfully. 
The shortest trial of the girl diagnosed as a borderline case was 6 
seconds longer than the maximum for her age. The other two who 
completed it without failure, but were diagnosed as feebleminded, 



102 THE rsvciiorjOaiCAL climc 

were hoys. The shortcut trial of tlie one wius noxt to the lonR(^t 
record for his age; the shortest trial record of tlie other was within 
the upper or poore.st 10 per cent for his age. It is therefore evident 
that some feebleminded children may pjiss the fornilward test 
successfully, but so fur :u< our experience goes do not win special 
honors. On the other hand, sonic normal children may fail to 
complete the test correctly on at least two of their three trials. 
This has Ixx'U demonstrated by the fact that children who failed 
on the formboard test when it was given in the school have lx?en 
diagnosed as normal by the Clinic. Of five such failures sent to 
the Clinic, and there diagnosed as normal, four failed on two of 
their three trials. It must be remembered that only those who made 
the worst failures were sent to the Clinic. Since some of those 
who make the worst failures prove normal, and some feebleminded, 
our jx)sition is definitely establishetl that we do not know the 
significance of failure, but that it does not necessarily mean feeble- 
mindedness. It appears that, if we must depend entirely ui^on 
time records or other quantifiable data in the treatment and inter- 
pretation of such cases, we are helpless. 

Successful Performances. 

This group includes the records of all the jniblic elementarj' 
school pupils in regular classes tested, except those eliminated in 
the preceding section. It also includes the records of 221 adults. 

All the records are chissified according to the sex and age of the 
subject. Up to the end of the twelfth year, the classifications are 
by half-year groups, after that to the end of the sixteenth year by 
year groups, and liustly those from seventeen to the beginning of 
the nineteenth year are thrown into one group. In the charts and 
tables each age group is designated by the middle value of the 
group. Thus the group headed 0.25 includes all the children who 
are six years old, but less than six years and six months old, r. e. 
it ends with the end of the fifth month. Those who are six years 
and six months old, but less than seven years of age come in the 
group headed 6.75. The l.i.SO group contains all ( hildren thirteen 
years of age. 

No record w;is kept of the number or character of errors made 
by these children. The work of other investigators already referred 
to, shows the futility of such records, especially for nonnal children. 
At no time during this investigation hjis the need of such a record 
l)een felt. It is nmch more important to consider why a child makes 
errors than merely to know what errors he makes. If the examiner 
gives his attention to the numlxT and kind of errors, he cannot 
study the performance anal>'tically while it is in progress. 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 103 

The only data uniformly collected from the performances of 
all the subjects tested, were the time records for each of the three 
trials. In some of the cases a record was also kept of those who 
removed and replaced the blocks according to some plan on the 
third trial. This latter feature was noted in an endeavor to deter- 
mine the advisability and possibility of standardizing quaUtative 
factors. It was found impossible in many cases to decide whether 
a subject intended to plan or if he just happened to remove the 
blocks according to a plan. In reality the easiest way to remove 
the blocks happens to be the best plan. 

The shortest of the three trials is taken as the index of an 
individual's formboard ability. This is generally taken by other 
investigators as the most reliable single index. It is easily deter- 
mined and lends itself readily to statistical treatment. So far as 
this investigation goes, it distinctly supports the earHer formboard 
studies which establish and adopt this as the most satisfactory 
basis for standardization. The shortest trial is here taken as the 
basis for the quantitative treatment of results. 

Tables I and II contain the distributions of the shortest trial 
time records for each age group; table I for boys and table II for 
girls. Across the top of the table, opposite F on the ordinate, are 
the number of failures for each age. They are given merely to 
show their relative frequencies and distribution. Otherwise they 
have no relation or significance in the tables of distribution or their 
quantification. The numbers in parentheses, across the bottom of 
the tables beneath the ages, show the number of cases in each age 
group included in the distributions. They do not include the 
failures indicated above. These tables show the distribution of 
the time records in the different ages and the general tendency for 
them to shift downward toward shorter times with the increasing 
age of the subjects. They also show that in several ages there is 
one extra long time record and that in several others the range of 
distribution is unusually narrow. The explanation of this latter 
condition lies in the fact that not enough children have been tested 
in any age group to determine reliably and definitely the range of 
distribution wthin which the records of all normal children fall. 
It appears, however, that enough cases are here presented to indicate 
in a general way the tendencies of the various age distributions and 
their central values. 

The range of distribution is wider and the standard deviations 
are larger for the records collected in this investigation than for 
those reported by any other investigator. Two factors are largely 
responsible for these differences. In the first place, the standard 



I04 



THE rSYCIlOWaiCAL CLIMi 



TAIiLE I. — ni'^TRIHmoN OP SHORTEST TltlAL TI.MK RKr()KI)> <>K 1 17 I HOYS. 



¥ 


5 9 


4 14 


11 4 5 


3 4 1, 11 


. 1 i 1 


n 

«7 

00 
59 
58 
57 
50 


1 


1 

1 

1 

2 














55 
54 
53 
52 
51 


2 

1 
1 1 


1 














50 
49 
48 
47 
40 


1 


1 1 

1 
1 1 


1 












45 
44 

43 

42 
41 


1 
1 
1 


2 1 
1 I 
1 

1 1 


I 
1 

2 












40 
39 
38 
37 
30 


1 2 

1 
1 
1 


1 2 4 

2 
1 3 
1 1 


1 1 

1 

1 1 

2 1 


1 

1 


1 








35 
34 
33 
32 
31 


1 
1 
1 
2 
1 


3 1 

3 3 

3 

1 4 3 

1 2 4 


2 2 
2 1 
2 3 3 
5 2 
4 3 4 


1 

2 3 
2 










30 
29 
28 
27 
20 


1 

3 

1 


1 3 3 
3 4 3 

2 2 2 
5 5 

1 4 


3 2 

4 2 1 

4 5 3 
3 3 4 

5 3 7 


3 2 

3 3 2 

4 1 

3 1 1 

4 2 3 


1 

2 1 
1 
2 1 


1 
1 1 


1 




25 
24 
23 
22 
21 


I 

I 


1 1 
1 1 

1 9 

2 3 
3 2 


14 5 8 
4 3 
3 
3 10 

8 2 


4 3 

2 1 1 
8 4 3 
7 13 7 



5 1 
3 1 3 

2 3 4 

3 4 

3 3 4 


1 

3 4 
1 S 

3 3 3 


3 1 
1 3 

7 


1 
1 


20 
19 
18 
17 
10 


1 


3 3 
2 

1 


3 3 5 
• 5 
3 4 
3 1 
I 1 


5 10 
3 11 11 
7 3 8 
3 7 8 
3 2 10 


3 4 4 

8 
3 
7 9 13 
9 7 9 


5 2 9 1 3 3 1 
4 3 4 19 4 3 

8 7 10 8 3 
9 11 13 3 
8 12 14 8 4 


I 

I 

1 1 

3 4 

3 3 


15 
14 
13 
12 
11 






2 1 


1 2 2 
3 1 7 

2 4 1 

3 


3 7 3 

4 7 
I 1 3 
1 1 3 
1 1 3 


10 9 8 15 13 10 
IS 11 ! 31 17 3 
4 4 10 13 13 12 
3 8 8 11 12 3 
2 3 8 7 3 


1 9 

2 1 10 

2 7 

13 

1 23 


10 
9 
8 
7 











2 


3 1 


7 5 3 
1 1 

3 1 


34 
15 
6 

3 




a R a 

•• ^ o 

S £ R 


s a R 

•o <o e 

7 S Q 

p«, ♦ • 


sea 

h- r« go 

s § § 


R a s 

ob o> oi 
§ § 1 


a R a 

o d " 


s a fi 

••MM 


s s s 

« •• «» 


s s 1 

2 2 < 


lis 


III 


P c: s 
S3 S w 


S 5 s 



Onlinatc: Tuar in ■ooooilr. 

Abnran: Asr, middle Tftlur uf. 

F: No. of failum per mcr (cxrhjJcd). 

In parcBtlMMi: No. ptr age >° distnbutioa. 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 



105 



TABLE II. — DISTRIBUTION OF SHORTEST TRIAL TIME RECORDS OF 1375 GIRLS. 



F 


8 11 12 


5 16 12 


7 10 5 


3 1 2 


3 1 


2 


1 1 2 




103 

86 
85 

76 

71 

56 


1 
1 


1 

1 
1 


1 












55 
54 
53 
52 
51 


1 1 


1 

1 


1 1 


1 










50 
49 
48 
47 
46 


1 

1 1 
1 


1 

1 
1 1 

1 














45 
44 
43 
42 
41 


1 
1 1 


3 

1 
1 1 

2 


2 

1 1 

1 












40 
39 
38 
37 
36 


1 1 


1 1 

1 1 

6 2 
1 1 1 


1 
2 

1 1 

3 


1 
1 
1 1 


1 








35 
34 
33 
32 
31 


1 1 

1 

1 1 


1 2 
1 1 

1 3 2 
1 3 

1 4 1 


2 

2 3 
2 1 
2 2 
10 5 1 


1 

2 2 1 

1 2 2 

1 


1 


1 

1 






30 
29 
28 
27 
26 




1 3 3 
5 2 

1 1 3 

2 4 3 

3 1 5 


4 4 1 
2 3 6 

5 2 1 
2 3 4 

6 7 2 


2 2 

1 2 
1 

2 1 
4 1 2 


1 

3 2 
2 


2 

2 1 1 

1 2 
5 1 1 


1 

1 
1 




25 
24 
23 
22 
21 


2 
1 


4 2 5 
1 2 1 
1 4 
1 3 

1 


3 5 4 

5 8 8 
5 8 3 
2 1 12 
5 5 3 


6 2 1 
2 7 2 
5 3 4 
10 4 7 
11 7 


1 1 3 

6 1 2 

1 1 

5 2 5 
4 7 1 


4 1 

1 1 2 

3 2 1 

2 1 2 

4 5 4 


1 

1 3 

2 1 
7 1 

6 3 2 


1 


20 
19 
18 
17 
16 




1 

1 


2 3 6 

4 2 4 

2 1 4 

2 4 

2 


7 4 6 

5 8 4 

6 6 3 

4 6 11 

5 1 7 


6 5 8 
6 8 4 

5 14 8 
10 6 6 

6 5 7 


6 5 2 

7 8 8 
9 14 11 

8 10 7 
7 6 7 


7 7 1 
10 4 
17 5 1 
17 6 2 
13 9 3 


2 

1 

4 

1 6 


15 
14 
13 
12 
11 

10 
9 
8 
7 
6 






1 
1 


2 3 8 
1 1 1 

1 
2 


3 5 7 
5 3 11 

2 1 3 

3 2 
1 


8 10 4 
4 11 7 
7 10 9 
2 2 1 

1 


18 8 5 
15 6 6 
12 8 3 
5 5 1 
5 3 2 


4 1 7 

3 6 

4 1 17 
1 1 14 

23 












2 3 

1 


4 1 1 
1 1 

1 
1 


1 7 
« 
5 

1 1 

1 




S {2 S 


e s K 


lo ua xs 

C-J t~ M 


•o in u3 
t^ M t^ 


us fcO Ift 

M r- (M 


K S {2 


o o o 

«o O US 


g 8 i 


■* ■* U5 


lO » « 


t- t^ 00 


00 oa o 


O O -H 


« M N 


CO ^ »o 


to od ;^ 










US O -H 


o o to 
Si S 21. 


g g g 


S £ g 


s s g 


SS S S- 


"* J^ s 


s * i 



Ordinate: Time in seconds. 

Abscissa: Age, middle value of. 

F; No. of failures per age (excluded). 

In parentheses: Noper age in distribution. 



lOG 



Tin: rsvi iiouxurAL ( UNic. 



TABLE III. — TIMK VALUKS AND NUMBER OK CA8ES OF DIFFERENT AOEH — BOT8. 



... , 


Numl>rr 
ofCaM 


Meu 


tioa 


Min- 
imuin 


lyOWWt 

QuioUle 


Loww 
Quintiic 


i 


IppCT 

QiuoUle 


Hixhot 
QvuDtile 


Max- 

ixDuin 


6 25 


49 


31.4 


8.29 


20 ■ 


26 


28 


30.0 


32 


37 


58 


G 75 


60 


31.2 


8.47 


17 ; 


23 


28 


29.7 


31 


39 


55 


7.25 


75 


27.5 


5 41 


20 


23 


25 


26 


28 


32 


45 


7 75 


73 


24.9 


6 43 


15 1 


19 


22 


23.3 


25 


31 


46 


8.25 


72 


24.5 


5.01 


15 


20 


22 


24.2 


25 


28 


37 


8.75 


72 


22.3 


4.91 


13 


18 


21 


22.1 


23 


27 


36 


9.25 


71 


20.9 


4.70 


13 t 


17 


19 


20.6 


22 


'23 


37 


9 75 


88 


19.5 


4 50 


12 


16 


18 


19 


20 


22 


32 


10.25 


62 


19 4 


4.28 


11 


16 


17 


18.8 


20 


23 


30 


10 75 


65 


18.0 


4. 57 


10 


If) 


16 


17.3 


18 


21 


38 


11 25 


72 


17.7 


3 47 


11 


11 


17 


17 4 


18 


21 


26 


11.75 


62 


17.1 


3.30 


12 


14 


16 


16.6 


17 


20 


27 


12.25 


85 


16.1 


3.56 


10 


13 


15 


15.7 


16 


19 


30 


12 75 


95 


15.9 


3.64 


9 


13 


15 


15 4 


17 


19 


26 


i:^oO 


137 


15.2 


3.23 


8 


12 


14 


15.0 


16 


18 


23 


14 .50 


101 


14.5 


3.00 


8 


12 


13 


14.2 


15 


17 


2,3 


15 .">0 


46 


14.6 


3.05 


9 


13 


13 


14.5 


15 


16 


27 


.X.lult 


121 


11 S 


2 96 


7 


9 


10 


11 1 


15 


16 


'23 



TABLi: IV. — TIMK VALVKS AND NT.MBER OK CASKS OF DIFFKUKNT A(!KS (ilKL.S. 



Ai?e 


Number 
ofCaaca 


ISUndard 
Man Dc\-i»- 

tiOD 


Min- 
imum 


Ixiwnit 
Quiottk 


Loww 
Quintile 


Mediui 


Upprr 
QiUDtilr 


Hishest 
Quiotiie 


M«x- 

imum 


6 25 


52 


34.8 


11.21 


22 


26 


29 


31.4 


33 


40 


76 


6.75 


46 


32.0 


10.43 


20 


25 


27 


29.3 


30 


37 


86 


7.25 


70 


28.1 


7.41 


18 


22 


25 


27.3 


29 


31 


56 


7 75 


70 


26.8 


6.13 


17 


22 


24 


25.6 


26 


31 


51 


8. -25 


73 


23.5 


4 94 


12 


19 


22 


22.5 


24 


28 


42 


8.75 


68 


22.0 


5.21 


13 


18 


20 


21.4 


23 


26 


38 


9. '25 


67 


21.5 


5.48 


12 


18 


19 


20.8 


21 


24 


40 


9.75 


73 


20.9 


4.75 


14 


16 


18 


20.0 


21 


23 


54 


10.25 


61 


18.3 


3.39 


12 


15 


17 


18.1 


19 


21 


25 


10 75 


68 


19.4 


4.36 


11 


16 


18 


18.5 


19 


21 


37 


11.25 


70 


17.8 


3.68 


12 


14 


16 


17.4 


18 


21 


27 


11.75 


86 


19.0 


5.04 


10 


15 


17 


18.1 


19 


23 


31 


12. '25 


94 


17.0 


3.76 


10 


14 


16 


17.0 


18 


1 20 


29 


12.75 


68 


17.2 


3.53 


9 


14 


16 


17.3 


18 


20 


29 


13.50 


144 


16.6 


3.61 


9 


14 


15 


16.5 


17 


19 


30 


14. 50 


71 


16.0 


3. 53 


S 


1 13 


15 


15.8 


16 


20 


24 


15. 50 


29 


! 14 9 


3. 37 


7 


' 13 


14 


14.7 


15 


17 


'23 


.\(liilt 


' KM) 


; 12 3 

1 


2.72 


<) 


10 


11 


I'J.l 


i:i 


14 


*•- 



THE WITMER FORMBOARD. 107 

method of giving the test permits the expression of greater individu- 
ality on the part of the subject. It is less mechanical and allows 
him more freedom in the employment of his own resources. In the 
second place, the scope of the investigation is larger and includes 
a relatively wider range of individuals, being made up of children 
from both th& better and the poorer districts of the city. Had the 
investigation been confined to either of these districts alone, a 
distinctly different distribution of records would have resulted. 
The standard deviations would then be considerably smaller than 
they are under the present distribution. The central values of the 
records from the better districts of the city are distinctly below 
those from the poorer sections. The maximum record for each age 
group was made in 87 per cent of the groups of girls and 83 per cent 
of the gi'oups of boys, by children from the poorer sections of the 
city; while the minimum record for each age group was made in 
87 per cent of the groups of girls and 70 per cent of the groups of 
boys, by children from the better sections of the city. This is not 
an attempt to contrast the better sections of the city with the poorer 
sections, but a practical demonstration of the pitfalls, and the 
impossibility of establishing reliable norms by testing only a couple 
of thousand children. It is absurd to label as a standardization the 
results obtained by testing only several hundred children. 

Tables III and IV contain the computed results of the distribu- 
tions of the time records for the ages in which the number of cases 
tested is sufficient to warrant a reasonable confidence in their 
reliability. Table III contains the records of the boys, and table IV 
those of the girls. In both tables the first column indicates the 
ages, the second the number of cases for each age group, and the 
remaining columns represent time values in seconds as calculated 
from the records for each age. The third column contains the 
mean time and the fourth the standard deviations. The fifth con- 
tains the lowest, i. e. shortest, or minimum record for each age; 
the sixth column, the lowest quintile, or the value of that record 
below which 20 per cent of the cases are distributed; the seventh 
column, the lower quintile, or that value below which 40 per cent 
of the cases are distributed; the eighth column, the median, or 
that value above and below which 50 per cent of the cases are dis- 
tributed; the ninth column, the upper quintile, or that value above 
which 40 per cent of the cases are distributed; the tenth colmnn, 
the highest quintile, or that value above which 20 per cent of the 
cases are distributed; the eleventh column, the maximum or longest 
record made by any individual of the group. 

The central values, as indicated by the relatively large standard 



108 



Till-: I'SYCUOLOfilC \l. (IJMi 



CHAHT I. — BOVH. 



m 



\() 



M) 



•JO 



1.') 



II) 







I t^ (M 1^ c^i I- CI I- T\ r>- c^i I- 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 



109 



CHAUT II. — GIRLS. 



85 . 



80 

75 
55 

50 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 




lO lO to >0 lO »0 lO >0 i-O >-0 o to «o >o o 
(M l^ (M t^ (M t^ (M l^ (M t^ C-l l^ CM l^ iO 



o 



OOt^t^-OOOOOCiO 



CN (M CO 



110 THE PSYriI()IJ)GICAL C LI SIC. 

devijitions, ospocially for ihc lower iifics, are only approximately 
reliable aiul are not presented a.s absolute and final norms. By 
this we mean, that these values do not determine the standard of 
normality so accurately that a child in order to l)c considered normal 
must })erf»)rm the test in exactly mean or metiian time; or stated 
inversely, that a eliild who ])crforms the test in a given length of 
time has the mentality of that age for which his time hap]>ens to 
l)e the mean or median value. In contradistinction U) what certain 
published reixirta would have us believe, it nmst Ix; rememl)cred 
that neither normality nor mentality, whatever they are, can Ix* 
re})re.sented by a point, or rated liy reference to any absolute standard. 

A graphic representation of the distribution of the time records 
of the children in tables III and IV is given in charts I and II. On 
the absci-ssa are the ages, and on the ordinate, the time in seconds. 
The lowest shaded portion is bounded by the minimum and lowest 
quintile. It contains the time record.s of the lowest 20 per cent 
of all records. The middle shaded portion, bounded by the lower 
and upper quintiles, is known as the middle quintile and contains 
the middle 20 per cent of the records, 40 per cent lying above and 
40 i)er cent below. The uj)permost shaded i)ortion, l)oun(led by the 
highest quintile and the maximum for each age, contains the highest 
20 ])er cent of all records. The unshaded ])ortions bounding the 
midtUe cjuintile each contain 20 per cent of the records. 

Reference to these tables and charts shows (1) that formboard 
ability increases at least to the age of fifteen; (2) that half-yearly 
norms are not only possible, but necessary, uj) at least to the age of 
thirteen, if a standardization is to have practical va ue; and (3) 
that l)oys are on the average superior to girls in the test. The 
actual value and extent of the differences here enumerated and 
established can be determined only by continued api)lication of the 
test to many more hundreds of children. Until such an extension 
is made the.se tables and charts will have to ser\e as the b;isis of 
comparison for records obtained with the u.>^e of the same boanl by 
the same method. 

The most expe<litious way of using the charts to compare a 
given record, is to refer the record first to its projwr sex and age 
group. Yis relative position within this group should then l)e deter- 
mined by locating it with reference to the (]uintile within which 
it falls. 

IJIHLloCRAriiV. 

1. GoDDAun, H n. The Konnl>oard &» a measure of intellectual development 

in childnMi. Kcprinf from Thr Trainiiuj School [liiillclin]. 191J. 9, 49-52. 

2. JoNK."*, K. K. Inrlividuul differences in hciuK)! children. Tiik P.svchol. 

CuNir, 1913, fi, LMl-J.'il. 



THE WITHER FORMBOARD. Ill 

3. NoRswoRTHY, N. Psychology of mentally deficient children. Columbia 

University Cont. to Philos. and Psychol., 1906. Pp. 111. 

4. PiNTNER, Rudolf, and Paterson, Donald G. The Formboard ability 

of young deaf and hearing children. The Psychol. Cunic, 1916, 9, 234. 

5. State Board of Charities, New York. Eleven mental tests standardized. 

Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin, No. 5. Albany, New York; 1915. 

6. Sylvester, Reuel Hull. The Formboard test. Psychol. Review Mono- 

graphs, Vol. XV, No. 4, Sept., 1913, Whole No. 65. Princeton, N. J.: 
Psychol. Review Co. Pp. 56. 

7. Op. cit. (7-9) 

8. " " (25 ff) 

9. " " (39-43, 51-52) 

10. " " (35, 46-49) 

11. " " (19) 

12. Wallin, J. E. W. Age norms of psycho-motor capacity. J. of Educa. 

Psychol., 1916, 7, 17-27. 
13 Experimental studies of mental defectives. Educa. Psychol. 

Mono., No. 7. Baltimore: Warwick and York, 1912. Pp. 155. 
14 Human efficiency. Fed. Sem., 1911, 18, 74-84. 

15. Whipple, G. M. Manual of mental and physical tests. Part I, 297 pp. 

Baltimore: Warwick and York, 1914. (297 ff). 

16. WiTMER, LiGHTNER. Coiu-ses in psychology at the summer school of the 

University of Pennsylvania. The Psychol. Clinic, 1910-1911, 4, 247 
and 249. 

17 A Monkey with a mind. The Psychol. Clinxc, 1909-1910, 

3, 179-205. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 158 684 



